“In all the practical work of our Party, all correct leadership
is necessarily ‘from the masses, to the masses’. This means: take the ideas of
the masses (scattered and unsystematic ideas) and concentrate them (through study
turn them into concentrated and systematic ideas), then go to the masses and
propagate and explain these ideas until the masses embrace them as their own,
hold fast to them and translate them into action, and test the correctness of
these ideas in such action. Then once again concentrate ideas from the masses and
once again go to the masses so that the ideas are persevered in and carried
through. And so on, over and over again in an endless spiral, with the ideas
becoming more correct, more vital and richer each time. Such is the Marxist
theory of knowledge.” —Mao, “Some Questions Concerning Methods of Leadership”
(June 1, 1943), SW 3:119.

[In 2002 Scott Harrison had an online debate with several
representatives of the RCP about leadership and the mass line. The full report of
this debate is available at:
http://www.massline.info/rcp/debate/
In the excerpt below, Dolly Veale, a spokesperson for the RCP at that time, tries to
defend the Party’s involvement in leadership work among the masses, and the use of
the mass line in doing so. Here she argues that putting out an informational leaflet
about the 9/11 attacks in 2001 was an application of the mass line. Followed by
Scott’s response.][Dolly Veale’s remarks:]
“I think an excellent example of our Party’s concrete application of the mass line
is the statement we issued on September 14 about the 9/11 events in New York (see
rwor.org). The masses loved that leaflet and so do I! I learned a lot from that
statement’s profound and poetic application of the mass line in handling the acute
contradiction in our two ‘90/10’ strategy — in not pitting the interests of the
majority of the world against the majority in this country, as the bourgeoisie works
to do.”[Scott’s response:] “Well,
here we have yet another false example of ‘using the mass line’. Putting out a leaflet,
no matter how good it might be, is (in itself) not an example of using the mass line.
“Remember that the mass line is
a method of leadership, as your own draft programme says twice. Putting out a
propaganda or agitational leaflet, such as the RCP leaflet about 9/11 is clearly an
educational action, not a leadership action.
“It is true that when there
is some actual attempt at leading the masses to do something or other, that a
leaflet or newspaper article can be part of the means of carrying out step 3 of the
mass line process—taking the line back to the masses for them to act on. Even then,
the leaflet is only a part of the overall process of using the mass line. But
in this case, the Party was not even attempting to get the masses to engage in
any particular action in the wake of 9/11, so how can this possibly be considered an
example of ‘using the mass line?’”
[Or, indeed, of mass
leadership of any sort! —S.H.]

“In January 1918, toward the end of the war [World War I], President
Wilson put forward his ‘Fourteen Points’ to lay the ‘cornerstone of world peace.’ The
‘peace’ he advocated naturally could be only an imperialist peace, and, as Lenin said,
‘an imperialist peace ... will bring the peoples the greatest deception in the form of
pious phrases, semi-reforms, semi-concessions, etc.’ [‘A Turn in World Politics’, LCW
23:262]. And it was true, Wilson’s ‘Fourteen Points’ were a scheme to smash Soviet
state power under Lenin’s leadership, transforming it into a bourgeois parliamentary
government. Thus in April 1918 he viciously sent troops and arms to intervene in
Soviet Russia. At the same time, he wanted to use the U.S. economic domination
established during the war to usurp political dominance of the world as well. The
establishment of the League of Nations was a means to this goal.
“However, Wilson’s wishful
calculations fell through. From the beginning, control of the League of Nations fell
into the hands of England and France, and as a result, the U.S. Senate rejected
membership in it.” —Shih Chan, A Brief History of the United States (Peking:
1972), available online in English translation at:
http://www.bannedthought.net/China/MaoEra/Pubs/History/A-Brief-History-of-the-United-States-Shih-Chan-1972.pdf

“The League of Russian Revolutionary Social-Democracy Abroad
was founded in October 1901 on Lenin’s initiative, incorporating the Iskra-Zarya
organization abroad and the Sotsial-Demokrat organization (which included the
Emancipation of Labor group). The
objects of the League were to propagate the dieas of revolutionary Social-Democracy
and help to build a militant Social-Democratic organization. Actually, the League was
the foreign representative of the Iskra organization. It recruited supporters
for Iskra among Social-Democrats living abroad, gave the paper material support,
organized its delivery to Russia, and punblished popular Marxist literature. The
Second Party Congress endorsed the League as the sole Party organization abroad, with
the status of a Party committee and the obligation of working under the Central
Committee’s direction and control.
“After the Second Party Congress,
the Mensheviks entrenched themselves in the League and used it in their fight against
Lenin and the Bolsheviks. At the Second Congress of the League, in October 1903, they
adopted new League Rules that ran counter to the Party Rules adopted at the Party
Congress. From that time on the League was a bulwark of Menshevism. It continued in
existence until 1905.” —Note 15, LCW 7.

“The League of Struggle for the Emancipation of the Working
Class was organized by Lenin in the autumn of 1895; it embraced about twenty
Marxist workers’ study circles in St. Petersburg. The work of the League of Struggle
was organized in its entirety on principles of centralism and strict discipline. The
League was headed by a Central Group consisting of V. I. Lenin, A. A. Vaneyev, P. K.
Zaporozhets, G. M. Krzhizhanovsky, N. K. Krupskaya,
L. Martov (Y. O. Tsederbaum), M. A. Zilvin, V. V. Starkov
and others. Direct leadership was in the hands of a group of five headed by Lenin.
The organization was divided into district groups. Advanced, class-conscious workers
(I. V. Babushkin, V. A. Shelgunov and others) linked these groups with the factories.
At the factories there were organizers who gathered information and distributed
literature; workers’ study circles were set up at the biggest establishments.
“The League of Struggle was the
first organization in Russia to combine socialism with the working-class movement.
The League guided the working-class movement, linking up the economic struggle of the
workers with the struggle against tsarism, it published leaflets and pamphlets for
the workers. Lenin was the editor of the League’s publications and preparations for
the issue of a working-class newspaper, Rabocheye Dyelo, were made under his
leadership. The influence of the League of Struggle spread far beyond St. Petersburg.
Following its example, workers’ study circles were united into Leagues of Struggle
in Moscow, Kiev, Ekaterinoslav and other towns and regions of Russia.
“In December 1895, the tsarist
government dealt the League a heavy blow. During the night of December 8-9 (December
20-21 New Style) a considerable number of League members were arrested, Lenin among
them; the first issue of Rabocheye Dyelo that was ready for the press was
seized.
“At the first meeting held
after the arrests it was decided to call the organization of St. Petersburg
Social-Democrats the League of Struggle for the Emancipation of the Working
Class. As an answer to the arrest of Lenin and the other members of the League,
those who escaped arrest issued a leaflet on a political theme; it was written by
workers.
“While Lenin was in prison he
continued to guide the work of the League, to help with advice; he sent letters and
leaflets written in cipher out of prison and wrote the pamphlet ‘Strikes’ (this
manuscript has not been discovered), and ‘Draft and Explanation of a Programme for
the Social-Democratic Party’ (LCW 2:93-121).
“The St. Petersburg League of
Struggle for the Emancipation of the Working Class was important, to use Lenin’s
definition, because it was the germ of a revolutionary party that took its support
from the working class and led the class struggle of the proletariat. In the latter
half of 1898 the League fell into the hands of the Economists
who planted the ideas of trade-unionism and Bernsteinism
on Russian soil through their newspaper Rabochaya Mysl. In 1898, however, the
old members of the League who had escaped arrest took part in preparing the way for the
First Congress of the R.S.D.L.P. and in drawing up the Manifesto of that Congress, thus
continuing the traditions of Lenin’s League of Struggle.” —Note 119, Lenin SW1
(1967).

“In the beginning of 1845, Marx moved to Brussels, where he was soon
joined by Engels. Here the situation was more favorable to political activity. This
was the period that saw the rise of the bourgeois-democratic movement in Western
Europe, a movement in which the proletariat was taking an increasingly active part.
Various workers’ organizations, secret societies and sectarian groupings arose under
the influence of the ideas of utopian and petty-bourgeois socialists. One of the
largest of such organizations, with branches in a number of countries, was the League
of the Just. Its motto was ‘All Men are Brothers’ and its members called for the
establishment of ‘the Kingom of God on earth’, based on the ideals of ‘love of one’s
neighbor’, equality and justice.
“At the beginning of 1847, Marx
and Engels joined the League of the Just and took part in its reorganization. The
first congress of this league took place in London and confirmed the renaming of the
league the Communist League. The former motto ‘All Men are Brothers’ was replaced by
the slogan of proletarian internationalism ‘Workers of All Countries, Unite!’ This
slogan, which had first appeared in the draft rules of the Communist League, became
the militant slogan of the international workers’ movement.”
—The Basics of Marxist-Leninist
Theory, ed. by G. N. Volkov, (Moscow: Progress Publishers, 1979), p. 24. [Although
by the time this book was written the revisionists had long-since seized power in the
Soviet Union and were purveying their distortions of Marxism-Leninism, the comments
here about the early activities of Marx and Engels seem valid to us. —Ed.]

LEFT vs. “LEFT”
Since the days of the great French Revolutionthe left has referred to those in politics who want progressive change in the
interests of the people, rather than maintaining the status quo or even change backward
in a reactionary direction. However, within the revolutionary Marxist milieu, the
left refers to genuine revolutionaries and not mere reformers. For Marxists,
the “left” or “leftist”, when it is in scare-quotes like that, refers not to the genuine
left, but rather to the phony, so-called “left” which is actually opposed to revolution,
or else to “ultra-leftists” whose inappropriate slogans and actions will not actually
lead the situation forward to revolution.
Thus what a particular individual means
by the left or leftist depends on their own political views (and specifically
whether they are a true and rational revolutionary or not).

“Guard against ‘Left’ and Right deviations. Some people say, ‘It is
better to be on the “Left” than on the Right,’ a remark repeated by many comrades. In
fact, there are many who say to themselves that ‘It is better to be on the Right than
on the “Left”’, but they don’t say it aloud. Only those who are honest say so openly.
So there are these two opinions. What is ‘Left’? To move far ahead of the times, to
outpace current developments, to be rash in action and in matters of principle and
policy and to hit out indiscriminately in struggles and controversies—these are
‘Left’ deviations and are no good. To fall behind the times, to fail to keep pace
with current developments and to be lacking in militancy—these are Right deviations
and are no good either. In our Party there are people who prefer to be on the ‘Left’,
and then there are also quite a few who prefer to be on the Right or to take a
position right of center. Neither is good. We must wage a struggle on both fronts,
combating both ‘Left’ and Right deviations.” —Mao, “Speeches at the National
Conference of the Communist Party of China: Concluding Speech” (March 31, 1955),
SW 5:167.

“Whoever commits the error of isolating himself is guilty of
‘Leftism’. Whoever does not isolate those who should be isolated is guilty of
Rightism.” —Communist Party County Secretary Ch’en of Lucheng County, Shansi Province,
1948; quoted in William Hinton, Fanshen: A Documentary of Revolution in a Chinese
Village (1966), p. 401. [Although perhaps a little simplistic, there seems to
be some considerable truth to this aphorism! —S.H.]

“Left Wing Communism is a handbook of Communist Party
strategy and tactics, of Communist leadership, and the building of a mass party.
It was written in 1920, at the time of the 2nd Congress of the Communist
International, in order to correct the ‘leftist’ mistakes being made by Communists
in a number of countries.
“Lenin draws on the experiences
of the Russian Bolsheviks as a guide for the world Communist movement.
“The Bolshevik Party, he
points out, grew strong and became steeled not only in the fight against opportunism,
but also in the fight against ‘petty-bourgeois leftism.’
“What are the principal
teachings of Left Wing Communism?
“1. Lenin shows the need
for a centralized and disciplined party and for maintaining proper relationships
between leaders, party, class and masses. He shows the need for a firm party
leadership and the danger of leftist talk which seeks to oppose ‘masses against
leaders.’ Such leftist talk, he shows, amounts to repudiation of the party and of
party discipline, that is, disarming the proletariat for the benefit of the
bourgeoisie. Such an attitude does not spring from the working class, which
understands the need for organization, but from the petty bourgeoisie. Our task is
not only to defeat the big capitalists, but also (what is even more difficult), to
remold and re-educate the small producers. This requires a long and arduous struggle
against the forces and traditions of the old system, which can ony be carried out by
a centralized and disciplined party.
“Lenin further shows how leftist
moods play into the hands of agents provocateurs.
“2. Lenin shows the need
for a ‘mass party.’ He shows that the task is to lead the masses, not just to work
wherever the masses are to be found, to penetrate everywhere, to rouse the masses
and draw them into the struggle.
“In this connection he stresses
how important it is to work in the trade unions; to refuse to do so on the pretext
that the trade unions are ‘reactionary’ would mean to leave the mass of the workers
under the influence of a handful of reactionary leaders. We must work wherever the
masses are to be found, taking into account their level of development, not fence
ourselves off from them by artificial ‘left-wing’ slogans.
“3. Lenin shows that the
party must master all forms of working class struggle. In conditions of illegality
it must learn to combine legal with illegal struggle. He particularly stresses the
need for the party to master the methods of parliamentary struggle, of participation
in elections and in bourgeois parliaments for the purpose of educating, awakening
and enlightening the masses.
“He stresses that the party
must be ready quickly to pass from one form of struggle to another, and must
practise self-criticism and learn from its own mistakes. Otherwise it is not a mass
party but a group of intellectuals.
“4. Lenin ridicules the
leftists who put forward the slogan ‘no compromise.’ We must know how to reach
compromise agreements with other parties and to apply these tactics to raise and not
lower the workers’ ability to fight and conquer. It is necessary to win every
possible ally and to utilize every division in the ranks of the enemy.
“It is necessary, moreover, to
learn not to fall into enemy traps—not to accept battle at a time advantageous to
the enemy and to avoid an obviously disadvantageous battle.
“In Chapter 9 Lenin deals with
Britain and expounds the tactics of building unity with Labour against the Tories.
This, he says, will enable the British communists to gain the ear of the masses, to
educate them and to hasten the end of right-wing influence.
“5. Lenin shows that the
communists must find the correct form of approach, the correct road to the proletarian
revolution in each country. The struggle has features peculiar to each country. We
cannot lay down general rules applicable to all cases, but it is necessary that the
fundamental principles of communism shall be correctly adapted to national and
nation-state differences. Attention must be concentrated, says Lenin, on finding the
forms of transition or approach to the proletarian revolution. This means to find the
right path to bring the masses up to the decisive revolutionary struggle.
“In this connection he deals
with the conditions necessary for the successful carrying through of the proletarian
socialist revolution.”
—Readers’ Guide to the
Marxist Classics, prepared and edited by Maurice Cornforth, (London: 1953), pp.
48-50.

“[O]n the one hand the character of the Soviets guarantees that
all these new reforms will be introduced only when an overwhelming majority of the
people has clearly and firmly realized the practical need for them; on the other
hand their character guarantees that the reforms will not be sponsored by the
police and officials, but will be carried out by way of voluntary participation of
the organized and armed masses of the proletariat and peasantry in the management
of their own affairs.” —Lenin, “Resolution on the Current Situation”, May 16 (3),
1917, LCW 24:311.
[These are quite similar to
the basic points that Mao made when he said that: “There are two principles here:
one is the actual needs of the masses rather than what we fancy they need, and the
other is the wishes of the masses, who must make up their own minds instead of our
making up their minds for them.” —Mao, Quotations, ch. XI; originally from
“The United Front in Cultural Work” (Oct. 30, 1944), SW 3:236-7.]

“To expound Leninism means to expound the distinctive and new in
the works of Lenin that Lenin contributed to the general treasury of Marxism and
that is naturally connected with his name.” —Stalin, “The Foundations of Leninism”,
lectures delivered at the Sverdlov University, April-May 1924, Works 6:71.

“It is usual to point to the exceptionally militant and exceptionally
revolutionary character of Leninism. This is quite correct. But this specific feature
of Leninism is due to two causes: firstly, to the fact that Leninism emerged from
the proletarian revolution, the imprint of which it cannot but bear; secondly, to the
fact that it grew and became strong in clashes with the opportunism of the Second
International, the fight against which was and remains an essential preliminary
condition for a successful fight against capitalism. It must not be forgotten that
between Marx and Engels, on the one hand, and Lenin, on the other, there lies a whole
period of undivided domination of the opportunism of the Second International, and
the ruthless struggle against this opportunism could not but constitute one of the
most important tasks of Leninism.” —Stalin, ibid., Works 6:73-74.

“LESSER OF TWO EVILS”
The very naïve but extremely widespread and popular political theory that in
elections in bourgeois democratic countries
voters should always support the “lesser of two evils”. This doctrine tacitly
recognizes that no “serious candidate” (i.e., no candidate of one the dominant
capitalist parties who is strongly promoted by a significant part of the ruling class
controlled media) will really champion the material interests of the working class and
masses, but nevertheless believes that one of them will always be “worthy of
support” because he or she is “not as bad as the other one(s)”. The common advice to
the working class is: “Hold you nose and vote for the lesser evil.” [In the photo at
the right Larry Sabato, a “political science” professor at the University of Virginia
demonstrates one possible technique.]The big problem with supporting the
lesser of two evils is that you are still supporting evil. This is why any
intelligent instance of supporting the lesser of two evils must at the very least be
combined with, and be subbordinated to, a genuine revolutionary program to get
rid of all the evils! In some exceptional situation where it might actually be
correct to support the lesser of two evils, it will still be critically important not
to do this in a way that on balance supports the current capitalist system, or which
portrays bourgeois democracy as anything more than the ruling class farce that it is.
The dogma that people should always (or
at least generally) support the “lesser of two evils” is the mantra of bourgeois
democracy, and is one of the most powerful props of the capitalist-imperialist system
today. The best way to get the masses to continue to support a viciously evil and
exploitative social system is to hide from them the fundamental fact that it is an
essentially unified single system, and, instead, to portray the system as providing
two (or more) “very different” political options between which the people have a real
democratic choice. (Even that part is phony, since it is the ruling class media which
generally determines the election outcome.) Thus an integral part of the bourgeois
electoral process is always to grossly exaggerate the actual small differences between
the candidates, and to make the choice seem to be one of “night or day”. This makes the
“lesser of two evils” argument sound more compelling.
The principle of supporting the lesser
of two evils is a very negative but powerful “intuition
pump” to get the unruly masses to stay within the acceptable bounds the ruling class
has set for them. Bourgeois democracy is not just a phony system, it is a downright
brilliantly manipulative system from the point of view of maintaining the capitalist
ruling class in power (despite their tiny numbers). By allowing the masses to have a
small voice in deciding between issues on which the ruling class itself is not in
complete agreement, they sucker the masses into thinking they govern the society. By
getting the masses to focus on supporting the “lesser of two evils” they still get them
to support a bourgeois candidate and “to work within the system”—rather than raising
hell in the streets and turning to revolution.
Translated into plain language (which
of course the ruling class will never do itself) their electorial campaign barker is
saying this: “Alright, suckers, step right up here and select one of my two candidates
who I am graciously allowing you to pick between. I’ve been emphasizing their tiny
differences so you’ll think you have a very important choice to make. And if you don’t
like either one of them, well then vote for the lesser of the two evils. I’m big enough
to allow you to make the final choice, as long as you stay within my tent.”
One additional reason that the “lesser
of two evils” argument is so popular in bourgeois society is that it helps
liberals and
“progressives” assuage their guilty consciences by
allowing them to convince themselves that “at least they are doing something”. As if
supporting and voting for any bourgeois candidate was really doing much of anything of
real importance. This internal justification helps excuse them from opposing the system,
which they themselves often admit is evil, in any really serious way.